Baryta paper comparison

[NAwlins Contrarian]

That seems to be the almost-universal view about several of these papers. But it also seems like more and more people are finding acceptable substitutes.

Yes, agreed… I’m using Canson Baryta Prestige a lot where I might / would have used the others in the past. It’s great in sheets, but is a bit like wrestling an alligator in rolls 24” and larger.

At 340 gsm and almost 15 mils (0.4mm) with an alpha cellulose base, I can imagine the rolls are a bit of a PITA!

 

[ChicagoRob]

The RR PD Baryta is very nice -- the closest I've seen so far to my old standby in the darkroom, Ilford Multigrade Fibre Based.

As Rob said, PDB is really nice. It has virtually identical rendering to PDSGR, which is a big compliment. I have it tied for second place with PDSGR, with Hahn PRP in first place. PRP ticks all the boxes quality-wise, but this level of quality comes at a price(a steep one).

 

[Rand 47]

If the manufacturer provides a profile, I like to try it first -- which is what I did with this paper. I'll make my own if I don't like the manufacturer's profile, but my equipment is only decent (ColorMunki) and my skill level is modest.

Re they RR PD Baryta, so far so good. I've had no complaints with any of the RR ICCs based on initial testing, and the Baryta is no exception.

My evaluation routine involves a few steps. I'm primarily interested in good black and white results, so you'll see the bias to testing for that.

• Print of a common colour test scene: Spyder3 Print SR image
• Print of a common black and white test scene: Keith Cooper's black and white scene
• Linearization check for black and white with my ColorMunki and Quadtone RIP to check for problems, especially in the shadows
• Jon Cone's "Proof of Piezo" image to confirm highlights and shadows, and to make sure fine detail is acceptable

I've done the first two tests for the RR PD Baryta. I'm happy with those results, so now I'm going to now move on to the next two later today.

For black and white work, the last two are very important. The Cone test in particular is merciless.

Image sources:

• Spyder 3 Print SR and Keith's black and white test scene are here: https://www.northlight-images.co.uk/printer-test-images/
• Jon Cone's Proof of Piezo image is here: https://shop.inkjetmall.com/blog/ink-on-paper-blog-2/post/the-proof-of-piezography-1471

Rob,

Many thanks for the explanation and links!

Rand

 

[Rob de Loe]

If the manufacturer provides a profile, I like to try it first -- which is what I did with this paper. I'll make my own if I don't like the manufacturer's profile, but my equipment is only decent (ColorMunki) and my skill level is modest.

Re they RR PD Baryta, so far so good. I've had no complaints with any of the RR ICCs based on initial testing, and the Baryta is no exception.

My evaluation routine involves a few steps. I'm primarily interested in good black and white results, so you'll see the bias to testing for that.

• Print of a common colour test scene: Spyder3 Print SR image
• Print of a common black and white test scene: Keith Cooper's black and white scene
• Linearization check for black and white with my ColorMunki and Quadtone RIP to check for problems, especially in the shadows
• Jon Cone's "Proof of Piezo" image to confirm highlights and shadows, and to make sure fine detail is acceptable

I've done the first two tests for the RR PD Baryta. I'm happy with those results, so now I'm going to now move on to the next two later today.

For black and white work, the last two are very important. The Cone test in particular is merciless.

Image sources:

• Spyder 3 Print SR and Keith's black and white test scene are here: https://www.northlight-images.co.uk/printer-test-images/
• Jon Cone's Proof of Piezo image is here: https://shop.inkjetmall.com/blog/ink-on-paper-blog-2/post/the-proof-of-piezography-1471

Rob,

Many thanks for the explanation and links!

Rand

Always a pleasure Rand. There's lots of sharing and learning happening in this forum! I've learned a ton from other people already.

Some other quick points that occurred to me after posting....

• If you read Keith's stuff, he frequently mentions that just because a paper is good on one printer doesn't mean it's good on another. I'm using a Pro-1000, so let's say my enthusiasm for RR PD Baryta is limited to that printer because it's the only one I've used with that paper.
• I've tried printing black and white with ICCs via Lightroom and via Canon's Professional Print and Layout (PPL) program. Using an ICC, I quickly ran across issues where dark grey against black showed a weird bluish/cyan cast. This happens with many papers I've tried, and every ICC I've tried (mine, paper company). I don't think this is a fixable problem, so it looks like on the Pro-1000 I'm going to have to use "black and white" mode for black and white printing. Fortunately it works quite well (but see below).
• Because Black and white mode on the Pro-1000 does not use an ICC, the 3rd and 4th tests I described above (linearization check and Cone's Proof of Piezo) don't say anything about the quality of the Red River ICC for the Palo Duro Baryta paper.
• For black and white, I find Canon Professional Print and Layout easier to use, and more flexible, than printing from Lightroom. However, there are a lot of settings, and each adjustment takes you farther from a colour managed workflow approach. For example, the obscure "Strength" setting is really important, and the default "Hard Tone" is killing darks for me; Standard works much better. I'm used to this approach (printing from a third-party app rather than Lightroom) because I'm coming from QuadtoneRIP, but printing like this could be a problem for people who are coming from a proper colour managed workflow that stays inside Lightroom or Photoshop.

 

[jakelindsay]

This one has been mentioned a couple times already. I'm new to this paper, but already I'm very pleased. I don't like glossy, and even semi-gloss/luster is not pleasing to me. Red River Palo Duro Soft Gloss Rag (which many love) is too shiny for my taste. The RR PD Baryta is very nice -- the closest I've seen so far to my old standby in the darkroom, Ilford Multigrade Fibre Based.

Rob,

Thanks for this…. very encouraging. I look forward to testing it. Are you using RR’s ICC profile(s) for it? If so, any opinion?

Rand

If the manufacturer provides a profile, I like to try it first -- which is what I did with this paper. I'll make my own if I don't like the manufacturer's profile, but my equipment is only decent (ColorMunki) and my skill level is modest.

Re they RR PD Baryta, so far so good. I've had no complaints with any of the RR ICCs based on initial testing, and the Baryta is no exception.

My evaluation routine involves a few steps. I'm primarily interested in good black and white results, so you'll see the bias to testing for that.

• Print of a common colour test scene: Spyder3 Print SR image
• Print of a common black and white test scene: Keith Cooper's black and white scene
• Linearization check for black and white with my ColorMunki and Quadtone RIP to check for problems, especially in the shadows
• Jon Cone's "Proof of Piezo" image to confirm highlights and shadows, and to make sure fine detail is acceptable

I've done the first two tests for the RR PD Baryta. I'm happy with those results, so now I'm going to now move on to the next two later today.

For black and white work, the last two are very important. The Cone test in particular is merciless.

Image sources:

• Spyder 3 Print SR and Keith's black and white test scene are here: https://www.northlight-images.co.uk/printer-test-images/
• Jon Cone's Proof of Piezo image is here: https://shop.inkjetmall.com/blog/ink-on-paper-blog-2/post/the-proof-of-piezography-1471

Long shot, but curious if you ever completed the tests and how RR Palo Duro Baryta faired? I've been very pleased with RR papers so far, and am interested in this one and the Palo Duro Smooth Rag.

 

[Rob de Loe]

This one has been mentioned a couple times already. I'm new to this paper, but already I'm very pleased. I don't like glossy, and even semi-gloss/luster is not pleasing to me. Red River Palo Duro Soft Gloss Rag (which many love) is too shiny for my taste. The RR PD Baryta is very nice -- the closest I've seen so far to my old standby in the darkroom, Ilford Multigrade Fibre Based.

Rob,

Thanks for this…. very encouraging. I look forward to testing it. Are you using RR’s ICC profile(s) for it? If so, any opinion?

Rand

If the manufacturer provides a profile, I like to try it first -- which is what I did with this paper. I'll make my own if I don't like the manufacturer's profile, but my equipment is only decent (ColorMunki) and my skill level is modest.

Re they RR PD Baryta, so far so good. I've had no complaints with any of the RR ICCs based on initial testing, and the Baryta is no exception.

My evaluation routine involves a few steps. I'm primarily interested in good black and white results, so you'll see the bias to testing for that.

• Print of a common colour test scene: Spyder3 Print SR image
• Print of a common black and white test scene: Keith Cooper's black and white scene
• Linearization check for black and white with my ColorMunki and Quadtone RIP to check for problems, especially in the shadows
• Jon Cone's "Proof of Piezo" image to confirm highlights and shadows, and to make sure fine detail is acceptable

I've done the first two tests for the RR PD Baryta. I'm happy with those results, so now I'm going to now move on to the next two later today.

For black and white work, the last two are very important. The Cone test in particular is merciless.

Image sources:

• Spyder 3 Print SR and Keith's black and white test scene are here: https://www.northlight-images.co.uk/printer-test-images/
• Jon Cone's Proof of Piezo image is here: https://shop.inkjetmall.com/blog/ink-on-paper-blog-2/post/the-proof-of-piezography-1471

Long shot, but curious if you ever completed the tests and how RR Palo Duro Baryta faired? I've been very pleased with RR papers so far, and am interested in this one and the Palo Duro Smooth Rag.

Alas no. I switched to a Canon Pro-1000 and no longer use Eboni VT ink and an Epson 3880.

The RR paper is very nice on my Pro-1000.

 

[D Saul]

My evaluation routine involves a few steps. I'm primarily interested in good black and white results, so you'll see the bias to testing for that.

• Linearization check for black and white with my ColorMunki and Quadtone RIP to check for problems, especially in the shadows
• Jon Cone's "Proof of Piezo" image to confirm highlights and shadows, and to make sure fine detail is acceptable

For black and white work, the last two are very important. The Cone test in particular is merciless.

This is very interesting to me as I'm also more concerned with printing b\w. If you weren't satisfied with some aspect of these two tests, like tonal separation in the blacks, where and what would you adjust in the printing process to affect the desired change?

 

[Rob de Loe]

My evaluation routine involves a few steps. I'm primarily interested in good black and white results, so you'll see the bias to testing for that.

• Linearization check for black and white with my ColorMunki and Quadtone RIP to check for problems, especially in the shadows
• Jon Cone's "Proof of Piezo" image to confirm highlights and shadows, and to make sure fine detail is acceptable

For black and white work, the last two are very important. The Cone test in particular is merciless.

This is very interesting to me as I'm also more concerned with printing b\w. If you weren't satisfied with some aspect of these two tests, like tonal separation in the blacks, where and what would you adjust in the printing process to affect the desired change?

When I wrote this, I was using Quadtone RIP for printing with Eboni Variable Tone ink, which is an open source monochrome inkset that I mixed in my basement from Paul Roark's formulation.

There were a lot of things to work on if I wasn't happy. I had to be sure the inks themselves had been mixed properly. I was careful so I never thought that was the issue (but it could have been).

The toughest challenge was building the profile used by Quadtone RIP for printing with that batch of ink on that batch of paper. This was a lot of work -- very steep learning curve. I got very close to what I consider perfect, but I could never get all the way. For example, I always had a bit of banding in the bullseye tests, a sign that things aren't quite right.

The results were good even when I got close, but when my Epson 3880 died and I bought a Canon Pro-1000, the first thing I did was make prints of images I'd printed with the Eboni inks, and then compare. I was not amused to discover that the Canon printer made better black and white. One caveat though is that I had to try several printing systems to find one that worked to my satisfaction. I ended up using Qimage One. I never became comfortable with Lightroom's print module, and the Canon software was very good, but I had issues with shadows on some prints.

 

[D Saul]

My evaluation routine involves a few steps. I'm primarily interested in good black and white results, so you'll see the bias to testing for that.

• Linearization check for black and white with my ColorMunki and Quadtone RIP to check for problems, especially in the shadows
• Jon Cone's "Proof of Piezo" image to confirm highlights and shadows, and to make sure fine detail is acceptable

For black and white work, the last two are very important. The Cone test in particular is merciless.

This is very interesting to me as I'm also more concerned with printing b\w. If you weren't satisfied with some aspect of these two tests, like tonal separation in the blacks, where and what would you adjust in the printing process to affect the desired change?

When I wrote this, I was using Quadtone RIP for printing with Eboni Variable Tone ink, which is an open source monochrome inkset that I mixed in my basement from Paul Roark's formulation.

There were a lot of things to work on if I wasn't happy. I had to be sure the inks themselves had been mixed properly. I was careful so I never thought that was the issue (but it could have been).

The toughest challenge was building the profile used by Quadtone RIP for printing with that batch of ink on that batch of paper. This was a lot of work -- very steep learning curve. I got very close to what I consider perfect, but I could never get all the way. For example, I always had a bit of banding in the bullseye tests, a sign that things aren't quite right.

The results were good even when I got close, but when my Epson 3880 died and I bought a Canon Pro-1000, the first thing I did was make prints of images I'd printed with the Eboni inks, and then compare. I was not amused to discover that the Canon printer made better black and white. One caveat though is that I had to try several printing systems to find one that worked to my satisfaction. I ended up using Qimage One. I never became comfortable with Lightroom's print module, and the Canon software was very good, but I had issues with shadows on some prints.

Wow, you had some dedication to this process. I didn't know just how deep things got using Eboni Variable Tone inks and I've been very satisfied (coming from 35+ yrs. in the darkroom) using first a 3800 and now a P800 with the original Canson Baryta Photographic paper, all within Lightroom. But I'm always interested in hearing about other methods to keep learning and improving my output.

That Canon Pro-1000 sure seems impressive!

 

[Rob de Loe]

My evaluation routine involves a few steps. I'm primarily interested in good black and white results, so you'll see the bias to testing for that.

• Linearization check for black and white with my ColorMunki and Quadtone RIP to check for problems, especially in the shadows
• Jon Cone's "Proof of Piezo" image to confirm highlights and shadows, and to make sure fine detail is acceptable

For black and white work, the last two are very important. The Cone test in particular is merciless.

This is very interesting to me as I'm also more concerned with printing b\w. If you weren't satisfied with some aspect of these two tests, like tonal separation in the blacks, where and what would you adjust in the printing process to affect the desired change?

When I wrote this, I was using Quadtone RIP for printing with Eboni Variable Tone ink, which is an open source monochrome inkset that I mixed in my basement from Paul Roark's formulation.

There were a lot of things to work on if I wasn't happy. I had to be sure the inks themselves had been mixed properly. I was careful so I never thought that was the issue (but it could have been).

The toughest challenge was building the profile used by Quadtone RIP for printing with that batch of ink on that batch of paper. This was a lot of work -- very steep learning curve. I got very close to what I consider perfect, but I could never get all the way. For example, I always had a bit of banding in the bullseye tests, a sign that things aren't quite right.

The results were good even when I got close, but when my Epson 3880 died and I bought a Canon Pro-1000, the first thing I did was make prints of images I'd printed with the Eboni inks, and then compare. I was not amused to discover that the Canon printer made better black and white. One caveat though is that I had to try several printing systems to find one that worked to my satisfaction. I ended up using Qimage One. I never became comfortable with Lightroom's print module, and the Canon software was very good, but I had issues with shadows on some prints.

Wow, you had some dedication to this process. I didn't know just how deep things got using Eboni Variable Tone inks and I've been very satisfied (coming from 35+ yrs. in the darkroom) using first a 3800 and now a P800 with the original Canson Baryta Photographic paper, all within Lightroom. But I'm always interested in hearing about other methods to keep learning and improving my output.

That Canon Pro-1000 sure seems impressive!

The Pro-1000 is superb. It's expensive to operate, but it's been absolutely reliable.

Your P800 is an excellent printer too. The top end printers from Epson and Canon allow us to make fantastic prints.

 

[jakelindsay]

My evaluation routine involves a few steps. I'm primarily interested in good black and white results, so you'll see the bias to testing for that.

• Linearization check for black and white with my ColorMunki and Quadtone RIP to check for problems, especially in the shadows
• Jon Cone's "Proof of Piezo" image to confirm highlights and shadows, and to make sure fine detail is acceptable

For black and white work, the last two are very important. The Cone test in particular is merciless.

This is very interesting to me as I'm also more concerned with printing b\w. If you weren't satisfied with some aspect of these two tests, like tonal separation in the blacks, where and what would you adjust in the printing process to affect the desired change?

I just made a test print of the Palo Duro Baryta in Black and White. I can scan it and upload if you would like to see. I surprised myself and ended up slightly preferring the Big Bend Baryta over the Palo Duro. Both are very nice.